Re: [ACTION-527]: Propose spec change to address extensibility in general

I believe that extensibility (both elements and attributes) should be
explicitly mentioned in the spec for all elements that allow for it.
What is otherwise the base for changing the schema? Schema should reflect
the normative provisions of the prose specification IMHO.
I also support extensibility by ANY namespace
Rgds
dF


Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Action 527 is to propose some changes to the specification to address what
> non-ITS elements/attributes can be added in the <its:rules> element.
>
>
> == What to allow:
>
> We could allow:
> - only elements/attributes of the http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensionsnamespace.
> - or any foreign elements/attributes
>
> My proposal would be to allow any foreign elements/attribute:
>
> ITS rules can be (and are) used by localization tools as the document
> where to store info about how to process the XML/HTML documents, and such
> files may need to set various options that are not in ITS or are not
> extensions of ITS.
>
>
> == Where to allow:
>
> - elements: anywhere in <its:rules>, after all <param> elements.
> - attributes: in <its:rules>, and in any ITS elements.
>
>
> == The proposed text:
>
> I would propose to just add one short item in the "4.2 Conformance Type 2:
> The Processing Expectations for ITS Markup" section:
>
> [[
> 2-5: Non-ITS elements or attributes found in a rules element MAY be
> ignored.
> ]]
>
> The schema will indicates where things are allowed, no need to add text
> for that in the specification.
>
> BTW, there is a typo in section 4.2:
> "...found on a rules elements." should be "...found on a rules element."
> (remove the extra 's')
>
>
> cheers,
> -ys
>
>
>
>